Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Art and Ideology in the OSR

Each spring I attend at least two academic popular culture conferences. This year I'm attending the Popular Culture Association (US National) conference in San Antonio (any readers hail from there?) in April and the inaugural conference of the Popular Culture Association of Canada conference (May) in Niagara Falls.

At these conferences scholars present their latest research and receive constructive criticism (or a destructive tongue-lashing) from their colleagues. In the last couple years I've been giving papers on the construction of nostalgia in D&D and plan to do so again this year.

Specifically, I want to examine the cover and interior art of OSR products. I'm doing so with a firm belief in the following:

1. Art is political, ideological, and therefore carries meaning2. Art reveals a discourse of past and present3. Reality and fantasy are the same thing.

These are my assumptions as they relate to examining the art as a "text" to be read for its component parts.

Here are some of my preliminary thoughts. They are not fully-formed and this is not yet a complete list.

OSR art is:

1. Based in the "emergent fantasy RPG" art of TSR D&D, but is not self-referencing in the same way that 4E art is now self-referencing2. Reflective of the desired style of play (perhaps also like 4E) (rules-lite, rulings not rules, weak thieves not heroes)3. A reaction against the corporate rpg model and mentality (WotC)4. Reaction against 4E.

23 comments:

I'm not sure I agree entirely with #2. To me at least, #2 is mostly about art debicting adventuring. Adventurers, not supereroes, if you see what I mean. The rest of what you say for this one doesn't entirely ring true for me. The "OSR" isn't exactly about rules lite. At least from my perspective. For #4 you are only partly right, I think. The reaction goes back much further, and has it's roots as much in the release of 3.0 as anything else. The OSR came to the attention of a wider audience when Gary Gygax died, which corresponded in time to near when 4e was released. But, as a movement it was already starting in 2006.

I absolutely agree that the art reflects the style of play. It is through imagery that we can convey in a glance what the game is about and what conventions it embraces.

On the other hand, while I agree that OSR art may be a reaction against corporate rpg models, I don't believe that it is specifically a reaction against 4E. Returning to point #2, 4E art reflects that game's style of play.

I think, too, that OSR art differs from corporate art in that it can focus more specifically on certain elements of the product's core ethos. Take, for example, the dark fantasy artwork on Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which is as professional as you'll see on any gaming product. But you'd never see this style of illustration on WotC products because they are looking for mass-market appeal, which restricts the type of artwork they can employ.

Addendum: OSR art often gets to the heart of what the game is about by depicting parties of adventurers exploring dungeons, finding treasure, encountering traps, etc. While corporate game art is often just a bunch of static images without context; or in the case of 4E, iconic characters fighting monsters, which is also description 'at a glance' of what that game is about.

It can be self-referential, if you include in "self" the stuff from the '70s and '80s. See especially Erol Otus' OSR stuff where it clearly is making reference to stuff done before. See also B/X Blackrazor's cover to his Companion book which makes clear reference to the Otus covers to the Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert books.

Still, those are clearly the exceptions and not the rules. I also get a strong feeling from the artists of wanting to capture the "feel" of that old school look without aping the style or any particular work or artist.

I think my thoughts on the differences between early TSR-era art and 3.x era art apply to the aesthetic the OSR has embraced. That said, there's something of a divergence in the OSR in regards to art. Some clearly prefer the more feverdream feel of Otus and Russ Nicholson, while others are more into the "you are there" look (Raggi's box cover is absolutely among that last bunch). Still, products seem to be willing to embrace a range of styles, probably reflecting that really, no two groups really play these games in the same way.

I'm not so sure there's a strong reaction against corporate art so much as a breaking of what are seen as the corporate rules. The general thought appears to be less trying to make clear a difference (in fact, there's been obvious aping of trade dress and layout in some products) and more along the lines of, "Hey, if I'm shelling out the money for this art, it had better be art I like."

For the most part, the OSR seems fairly ignorant of what's going on with 4e art. They're not looking at the products, they're not following the web pages, and frankly, there's more than enough in the OSR to keep us all pretty busy. If any corporate outfit is having much influence on the OSR, it's probably Paizo.

Sadly, I would say that about 90% of today's OSR art would not even be considered finished by most standards (like ConceptArt.org), but preliminary work. The Otus/Trampier vibe is not really there except in a very few cases (like Pete Mullen) and a lot of the work comes off as unfinished or hurried. Therefore I would be hardpressed to consider much of it even art.

I agree with the previous comments that too much emphasis is being put on "OSR as response to WotC/4e". That is an element but there is more to it.

I think there is an important DIY/punk aesthetic to the OSR art too. A lot of these guys are not classically trained artists (OK some are but I think Otus and Trampier are revered BOTH for their 'mere presence' in the most nostalgically revereed works AND for their visceral, even gonadal power combined with their childlike ownder. I aspired more to recreating Otus and Trampier in my notebook scribblings in 6th grade than I did to recreating the more "competent" and "realistic" work of Elmore or Parkinson or the Hildebrants. A fair amount of OSR art looks very much like it could have appeared on punk rock posters, or underground comix, etc. (Although certainly not all of it! There is also some very proficient work. So I guess I'm agreeing with trollsmyth about it being anti-corporate to some extent. I think an interesting tension in the whole OSR is that there are both lefty anti-corporate DIY punks utopians AND beardo wargamer elitist reactionaries, with similar interests and objectives despite totally different takes on things. (I'd be hard-pressed to pidgeon hole most OSRers but I definitely see examples of both extremes.)

Interesting topic of discussion. I'd be interested in hearing what the artists think about it. As for me, my art reflects what I want to see in a game. Is it a reaction to 4e? Sure, I guess to some extent. I'm not a big fan of the spikes and chains aesthetic so I try to have a bit more verismilitude in my work. Having said that, I absolutely grew up in a punk rock DIY culture as a kid. I actually used to do zines and comix, do punk rock flyers for my friends bands, etc. I was also a fine art student in high school and university (although I ended up with a degree in Computer Science). Is there a conscious rebellion on my part against the corporate culture? No, not really. I just don't exist in that realm. The OSR is free form and accessible and I just am having a blast being able to contribute something to it.

<--not a beardo elitist wargamer, more of a heavy metal DIY-er. I just know how to draw and paint. I wouldn't feel confident releasing a lot of what I see in the OSR. DIY doesn't mean that something should just be knocked out, one should do their best regardless. Poor anatomy and stiff figures are not a quality of punk art. I will be releasing a graphic novel based on my blog and I will be doing my absolute best on it, not just turning out anything I can.

I think you could add in there that for the most part, the art of the OSR reflects the DIY, hobbyist mentality of the community. This is a generalization, because some of the art is in highly polished form, but some of us prefer art with a more immediate, primitive feel to it.

I can only speak for myself as a one-time OSR artist but I don't really agree with any of these points.

1. "Based in the "emergent fantasy RPG" art of TSR D&D, but is no self-referencing in the same way that 4E art is now self-referencing"

(When I did illustrations for S&W I was asked to draw on older rpg art as inspiration, to me black and white illustrations are what I think of when I think of old-school, so in a way that was self referential. )

2." Reflective of the desired style of play (perhaps also like 4E)(rules-lite, rulings not rules, weak thieves not heroes)"

(Maybe, I certainly tried to depict the average schmo as an adventurer rather than a musclebound prettyboy. I think the art might have more of an effect on the style of play than the style of play would have on the art.)

3. A reaction against the corporate rpg model and mentality (WotC)

(It was more of just bringing back a style that I grew up with and loved. Dare I say "nostalgia"?")

4. Reaction against 4E.(4E didn't exist when I did illos for 4E, but possibly a reaction against 2E, 3E, and 3.5.)

As to Ancientvaults opinion on what is art and what isn't, when you aren't getting paid to do a job you're not going to spend as much time on the work. If you want quality work, you have to pay for it. Illustrations were sometimes hurried because demands for a lot of illustrations in a short period of time.

@Atom Kid: That I understand and more's the pity. Nobody should be expected to provide work for free. Even "free exposure" is a poor reason not to pay someone for their time. If you go to a tire store to have your tires rotated a wink and a nod aren't going to pay the guys at the tire store and asking someone to create art for you is no different. If you are starting out on a "shoestring" budget and cannot afford to pay for illustrators and writers then you aren't ready to start your endeavor yet.

That said, I have liked a lot of your work, Atom Kid, don't single yourself out! I didn't mention any names, did I?

Everyone is quite right to point to earlier editions (2, 3. 3.5 and then 4E) for the seed of the reaction as expressed through art.

I think I'm just particularly struck when flipping through the 4E books, how muscle-bound and clean everyone/thing looks. Also, the wry humour, so much a part of OD&D, Basic, and 1E is absent. The current edition isn't self-deprecating. The contrast in the aesthetic is marked and reflects they style of play and the needs of gamers/gamedom in both circles.

I would say the work I do isn't so much a reaction against any certain game but a reaction to the games I like to play. I wouldn't say everything I've seen in the OSR is great art (yours truly included) but there is an undeniable enthusiasm and energy much like what you saw in the first D&D books, where not all the art made sense but carried it off none the less. I've been fortunate to be able to contribute to the OSR and can't wait to see what it produces next!

I think overall, I'm actually impressed with how much better the art in the OSR is getting. I think that a lot of the art is not so much a reaction for or against anything (some actually is). On the whole, I think the OSR as a DIY hobbyist endeavor is a great way for artists, writers, etc to get a chance to cut their teeth. Fight On!, Knockspell and even OSRIC were designed by fans to primarily reach fans, so the efforts are going to be more on a fun, enthusiast level than a seasoned pro. Now having said that, if someone is going to set themselves up as a publisher and expect to compete for the same gaming dollars as guys like Goodman Games, then they should step up to the plate.

I've contributed art to at least 4 issues of Fight On. (Possibly 5, I lost count). I personally feel that 4th edition is the best version of D&D ever published.

But anyhow, isn't the notion that OSR art is all a reaction (I would say "reduced to a mere reaction") against 4th edition D&D.. a huge insult to all of the artists and their work? Your thesis statement suggests that the OSR is really just a collective expression of resentment, and here's the art as proof.

That said: Art is much more an expression of the artist than the edition. Many of the artists (with noted exceptions) who have created work that is associated with whatever edition... never played them at all- they just did art on commission or by order, or they were sought out for their talent or style or willingness to contribute ..regardless of whatever edition they might have been playing. Some artists don't play D&D at all! This is a situation that has been true of every edition.

To me, it seems like you want to reduce the efforts of artists (who express themselves positively and share their talents) into a reductionist political statement about your personal issue, and that seems very screwed up, somehow.

I can't speak for anyone else (so I won't try), but here are my thoughts:1. Based in the "emergent fantasy RPG" art of TSR D&D, but is not self-referencing in the same way that 4E art is now self-referencing I don't know much of anything about 4e (rules, art, etc) so I can't compare/contrast it to what I am doing or what I think the OSR is doing (or aspiring to do).2. Reflective of the desired style of play (perhaps also like 4E)(rules-lite, rulings not rules, weak thieves not heroes) I think there are several stages to artistic development: 1) You struggle to make the art you want and 2) you accept what you make. So I started off trying to copy the artists I like, I failed and then just decided, "well, this is how my art looks like." I think I am 1/2 way between stages.3. A reaction against the corporate rpg model and mentality (WotC) Yeah, I got really tired of the 3e and 3.5e slick 'look' and I don't really like the look of many computer/tablet paintings that have come to dominate fantasy/genre art. I really don't like much of the highly polished 2e era art (like Elmore); especially the stuff with static seeming poses where the subjects are posing for a photo. I like the goofy and strange and underground seeming 1e work (like Trampier, Otus and Wham) who seemed to have one foot in TSR and one foot in some psychedelic head shop art/underground comics. Plus there is frequently something about to happen in that work --- like a monster lurking just beyond the sight of the adventurers or a troll laughing while winding up the string that a hero has been using to find his way through the maze.4. Reaction against 4E. I must have seen at least some of this, but it honestly didn't make much of an impression on me.Much of the OSR is amateurish, but that doesn't bother me --- I like a lot of amateur/outsider art where the hand of the artist is more obvious. Plus I think the DIY movement can live on. I sometimes think OSR publishers make a mistake when they make their publications too polished and 'professional' looking. Its sort of like opening up a company's web site and seeing obvious stock photos of a pretty woman in a headset next to 'operators are standing by to take your order!' or some similar tired advertising come on. As a viewer, you know the person in the photo is NOT the person who will be taking your call, so the inclusion of the picture just makes the company more generic and desperate seeming rather than what was intended.1. Art is political, ideological, and therefore carries meaning2. Art reveals a discourse of past and present3. Reality and fantasy are the same thing.I'm right there with you on #1 and #3. I'm not sure I understand #2.

Pseckler13 said...That said: Art is much more an expression of the artist than the edition. Many of the artists (with noted exceptions) who have created work that is associated with whatever edition... never played them at all- they just did art on commission or by order, or they were sought out for their talent or style or willingness to contribute ..regardless of whatever edition they might have been playing. Some artists don't play D&D at all! This is a situation that has been true of every edition."

I think most of the artists who have contributed to OSR publications did so because they play or have played older editions of the game. I know of at least 3 (besides myself) other artists who continue to play older edition games.

But I agree that it's not so much a reaction against something as it is a love for something.

@pseckler, I understand your point. I have considered this closely. Despite the new and creative efforts we all see among OSR publishers and artists, I feel there's as much a "reaction to" the aesthetic of 4E (3/3.5) as there is an effort to "reassert" the older editions and styles of play.

If in the face of WoW avatars, muscle-bound comic heroes, and 4E PCs, we continue to see the depiction of weak-kneed, thin-armed, foppish adventurers, certainly there is a reaction to something. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm correct, I'm saying that there's something there. I'm just in the process of trying to put my finger on it. I do appreciate your comments, and I'll give them more thought.

In terms of #2, all I'm trying to make explicit is that in order to examine OSR art - in context - one needs to understand 1) that the art of most OSR materials demonstrates, in my opinion, a understanding of early TSR D&D. And 2) although that most OSR art pays homage, it is fundamentally new (and therefore reflective of the contemporary social, cultural, and political contexts in which it emerges).

This dialogue of past and present is at play in many forms of popular culture. This hasn't been looked at critically in RPGs, but scholars of comic books have looked at change over time in that genre and how each generation changes the look of super heroes to match their present. This would make a great study of D&D across the editions.

About Me

Greg is a boastful, hammer-wielding, red-bearded dwarf who started playing D&D in the early 1980s when hooked by the Red Box. When he's not obsessed with D&D he poses as a sleep-deprived professor of popular culture.